Craig

I have been on dozens of demos over the years. Can you name me a single peaceful demonstration that has ever had an impact on public policy? Would it not be a more constructive form of activism for these people to join a political party and start the long road to power, whether it’s in the parish council, the council chamber or the Commons? In other words, why don’t you urge all these people to get up off their metaphorical arses, stop snivelling, and engage with the REAl political process? As a good liberal surely you support parliamentary democracy?

Good post Craig but I’m not sure you’re right about the climate change issue.

Many climate change scientists call the whole thing a ‘scam’. David Bellamy, for one, claims he was dropped by the BBC long before Al Gore’s film for challenging the science behind all the propaganda.

That the earth’s resources should not be consumed at the present rate cannot be denied but there are many other justifications for severe conservation measures being put in place besides ‘climate change’.

The very fact that the powers-that-be promote the issue so heavily makes me mistrust it. Carbon credits could well become the new ‘derivatives’ when banking gets back on its feet (i.e. the basis for creating another massive bubble and continuing to scam trillions of dollars off the top of the world’s wealth).

What society and G20 politicians (some hopes) should be calling for is an end to usury (which was banned throughout christendom for so many centuries because it was seen, rightly, as a moral hazard). We should be demanding that private corporations not be allowed to create our money for us and charge us interest on it.

Debt is slavery and the debtor is a slave to the lender. This is the mechanism by which the financial powers control us and own nearly everything.

Many, if not most, people realise that these people OWN our governments. Politicians understand that they have to please this nebulous power before they even get a chance to get elected. Once elected the same rule holds to get into the cabinet etc….

The government could easily create our money for us directly, interest free. A return to such a system would truly transform our world. We might get to decide the occasional thing for ourselves instead of having every detail of our lives ordered for us by some infernal corporate-funded think-tank.

I am very confident that there will be a higher percentage of political party members among the demonstrators than among the general population.

The growth of single issue politics is though a response to a lack of responsiveness from major political parties who are in hock to commercial interests and run by seedy and uninspiring people.

I have no doubt there is a human contribution to climate change. But as you say, KevinB, even if there were not, the imperative to reduce environmental degradation would still be there.

Yeah…the mainstream “news” is a pathetic joke.

Dumbed-down beyond belief.

KevinB: “The government could easily create our money for us directly, interest free”.

Yes. Just like Lincoln did and JFK tried to do. But look what happened to them.

Of course if you have no time to look at the evidence that Climate change is not man-made

http://climatechangefraud.com/

you are bound to repeat NWO propaganda.

Please just have a look at the concise and well documented

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics_handbook_2-1.pdf

If it is that important prioritise it.

And yes poisons are destroying our lives. But who tackles those ?

Researcher

Many commenters have a peculiar tendency to presume that anyone who has a different opinion is ill read.

Eddie, you ask: “Can you name me a single peaceful demonstration that has ever had an impact on public policy?”

Probably not. But I can cite a couple of less-than-peaceful ones: The Women’s Suffrage movement and the Poll Tax riots.

The problem with your ‘constitutional’ solution is that democracy in this country is such an occasional thing. We get the opportunity to vote so very rarely. How else can the public express its views on current matters, as they arise, if not by demonstrating? It may not achieve much but at least it keeps the matter in the public eye and let’s individuals know that others share their concerns.

If they use the economy as an excuse to drop the GLOBAL WARMING (note: renamed to climate change since it became obvious the climate is cooling) nonsense then great, because its all unscientific politicised bullshit to control and tax us anyway.

Craig and KevinB: spot on. Is there a pun intended in the ‘down’side of featherbedding the financial sector I wonder.

If I had a say at the G20 it would be:

1/ Let the final purchaser of products pay the carbon levy. We have evaded our planet resources responsibilities by getting Asian countries to dig up minerals, burn coal and make stuff for us without paying any levy on the resources.

Brown keeps playing the Africa card, but the people of Africa know that the colonial mindset of this country has not changed one dot. Carbon trading is a good idea but has become post colonial con.

2/ The plan to control the oil resources of the world in the Middle East and the former Soviet colonies, in order to curb the expansion of our political rivals the new Asian economies can backfire. The bankers, having shamelessly stolen the money from the banks can just as shamelessly sink the dollar and switch us to a new Asian currency. The fact that this has not happened yet tells me that Asia still respects the West. As soon as the West ceases to deserve that respect by engaging in torture and genocide, the bankers are ready to sell us down the drain.

The big clean up for us is not carbon emissions, it is in politics. Myopic politicians like Brown and Blair have to heave on board that Asian countries will not listen to spin any more. It’s clean up our game or be subjected to a New world order under India and China. No more selling Eastern banks bangles of worthless mortgages and trinkets of high-minded policy ideas. Clean up Western politics or bust. If Gordon Brown hasn’t got the bollocks to do it, get out of the way and let real leaders take on the challenge. There are plenty of us out here.

Anyone who worships at the altar of AGW is by definition ill read (because if a rational person reads what I have read, they wouldnt believe in it), although being bombarded by propaganda about it from all sides 24/7 absolves them of most of the fault.

“we have created a position where the financial services industry is featherbedded above all others. It has no downside. Success brings individual rewards on levels you and I can only dream of, while failure means you and I will pick up the tab with – on average – 14% of our total personal wealth donated to the bankers so far.”

Nicely put, Craig. Can you tell us a little more about your 14% calculation?

strategist

I am working on a gobsmacking statistical exposition of the crisis at the moment.

I’m surprised to see so many posts on here today. Shouldn’t you all be down in London smashing windows and knocking policemen’s helmets off? The media has been telling me that this would be happening today so jump to it.

MJ I knew you would mention the poll tax riot which is why I used the word “peaceful”. The poll tax was bad policy and I think the tories realised it: it would probably have been scrapped regardless of the riot.

Researcher: sorry I haven’t read skeptics handbook 2.1. I did read the 2.0 version which put forward four key reasons not to believe in AGW. I don’t know enough to have an opinion on the first of these but the second, third and fourth were such obvious rubbish it’s not something I’m going to spend any more time on.

Anent peaceful protests, they had no effect in Scotland against the poll tax. It was when the English rioted in the streets that the Tories took notice.

I daresay Mrs Thatcher never took much interest in Scotland anyway. She did opine that the only vote in Scotland that mattered was the SNP vote, echoing an earlier post of Craig’s – so long as they vote Unionist it’s OK.

I can’t think of an example of a single peaceful protest having any effect, but I suspect that the extended campaign of protest and education by CND probably rendered nuclear war less likely. Without this the government’s inane ‘protect and survive’ campaign (lean the table against the wall and get under it) might have allowed people to think that a nuclear attack was no big deal.

So peaceful protest won’t work, violent protest is unpredictable in its outcomes, and the party political system has atrophied into a single party with different names – at least in England and Wales.

Is there any way to breathe a little more life into the quest for Scottish separation?

Only three Tory MPs stood against Mrs T about the poll tax, which is about the same number as stood up to Tony Blair about Iraq. When she fell the rats couldn’t get out of the ship fast enough. I am waiting for a repeat of the farce.

Here’s ‘breaking news’ site from Indymedia

http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/943

Re parliamentary democracy. I have an idea. Why doesn’t everyone just find out who the nicest/best candidate in their area is and support/vote for them, irrespective of parties?

Someone pointed out on CiF that the great thing about British democracy is that we don’t have the presidential system. We elect individuals. So why not elect decent ones?

You can check out your MP’s voting record on theyworkforyou. Mine happens to be Labour but since he has voted against just about every bad thing this government has proposed he’s effectively the opposition. As are Jeremy Corbyn, Paul Flynn etc etc. If I were in Oxford I’d vote for Caroline Lucas, though, since I’ve heard nothing bad about her. And quite a few Lib Dems with a chance are decent. And (yes) some Tories; I might go for Ken Clarke, after his sterling attacks on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, to my surprise. It would depend who he was standing against.

Of course, this is terrible pragmatism, and my anarchic soul is somewhat ashamed. I would spoil my ballot but sadly the UK has no minimum turnout necessary for an election to be legal.

As for the Poll Tax riots, although an amazing upsurge in popular people’s action, and a community routing of bailiffs all over the country, didn’t they just rename it the Council Tax?

However (final thought) at the WTO talks in Cancun, where protestors attacked the fences and a farmer killed himself in protest, a minister from (I think) Brazil was quoted as saying that the protestors outside gave heart and courage to the countries inside trying to fight the US bloc for fairer treatment. The comment vanished from the wires soon after, but still.

Have you noticed how many cameras there are, and how everyone politely stands aside for them, even when they are “clashing” with the police.

People are angry, peaceful protests against the Iraq war were ignored and a million Iraqis died. Children died for no given reason. The anger has been building since then.

The police might consider rethinking their tactics & strategy, bully boy works to a point, then it becomes counter productive. Most people are basically decent, treat them well and they will respond in kind, treat them with contempt and they will accept it to a degree. The question today is has the state isolated itself too much from its citizens. They may find themselves in a very lonely and friendless place.

Why are we treated to so much exposure of the “leaders’” wives and husbands. It’s like cheap porn, “Leaders’ Wives”.

I no longer see any point in voting. If Blair could wage a war without any discussion on it in cabinet and MPs are cosying up to the Privy Council why waste one’s energy going up to the poll station. It would be better spent in other ways to achieve any say in our lives. Demonstrating en masse puts the fear of God into those who dupe us into believing we live in a democracy.

Paul

“Anyone who worships at the altar of AGW is by definition ill read”

Leave out the loaded put-downs “worships at the altar” and that means 95% of qualified scientists are ill-read, I guess.

There is still a lot more to understand about GW and many people over-state the threat but I can’t see any reason to dispute the general thrust.

Refusal to act on the evidence is an understandable policy, if selfish and short-sighted. Denial of the evidence for ideological or political reasons seems rather foolish…

Go to Glacier National Park (where almost all the glaciers are gone) or southern Chile and see for yourself.

“As for the Poll Tax riots, although an amazing upsurge in popular people’s action, and a community routing of bailiffs all over the country, didn’t they just rename it the Council Tax?”

er, no. The poll tax was a tax on the person, the Council tax is a tax on the property, based on values.

Per person: well, you get a “reduction” for single person occupancy: two people pay more. And each individual has to register for it. It’s not as bad as making a family of six in a housing block in Glasgow pay the same as a family of six in a mansion in Battersea, I agree. But it is still crippling people in sink estates across the UK regardless.

“I am working on a gobsmacking statistical exposition of the crisis at the moment.”

Looking forward to this enormously. Craig, you *will* get back on Newsnight – as the new Paul Mason if necessary…

BTW, a good Newsnight tonight I thought – indeed one might almost say that today the Field of “Permitted” Opinion widened somewhat – and therefore today’s demos can be called a success.

Mark Thomas is really emerging as a very good spokesman for the movement, he spoke passionately on tax havens and old miseryguts Paxman gave him the laurel for an unanswerable point on how the hell did it end up that HMRC’s offices are leased from a PFI concern based in a tax haven.

However, Mark Thomas only gets second prize for the most passionate denouncer of tax havens, the top prize goes to Sarkozy, I take my hat off to the man, he has acted as a true leader today.

April 1, 2009

“The G20 Meetings: The European Union is in Tatters”…

http://tinyurl.com/dcp285

@eddie

“In other words, why don’t you urge all these people to get up off their metaphorical arses, stop snivelling, and engage with the REAl political process?”

You really need a grip on political theory.

“The English nation thinks that it is free, but is greatly mistaken, for it is so only during the election of membes of Parliament; as soon as they are elected, it is enslaved and counts for nothing. The use it makes of the brief moments of freedom renders the loss of liberty well-deserved.” – Rousseau, The Social Contract

The scenario he is illuminating there, of how the use of deputies is, de facto, a symptom of a decaying society, is not remedied by the people becoming representatives, as the society at this point is dominated necessarily by attending to private interests, with little time left to the majority to engage with public affairs.

You perpetually act as an agent provocateur, but you genuinely possess no knowledge. You posit here some tenuous link between ‘supporting a liberal democracy’ and having to believe that change can only come about through participation in public life, at a time when, more than ever, people are concentrating more on surviving the economic crisis than attending council meetings.

Somebody needs to join the dots and realise that the economic crisis and its drive towards further raising private interests as the be-all and end-all, will further disenfranchise the public from its own institutions. Many people have the tacit understanding that the state is working against them on a full-time basis, and that to attempt to dilute the barrel of bad apples with some good ones will take too long.

I think Eddie works in some unemployment-immune government office, at a guess, somewhere dimly lit and out of the range of thinking people and books, and the day is spent tapping out comments on this site and watching torture videos.

Ha ha! The battle for Craig’s soul continues. His climate change soul, that is.

Me, I used to be that fellow who, regardless of what inconsistencies there were in the official argument, would still hang his climate change hat on the hook of _insert_climate_reality_here_. Glaciers sure, but for me it was those tropical islands slowly disappearing under the Pacific. This was a simple concrete proof. But proof of what? That the climate is changing obviously.

But frankly that’s simplistic. It would also be true to say that it’s proof that ‘climate changes’. Both of these things are true, but there’s a BIG difference.

Has anyone seen Michael Wood’s documentary for the Beeb, ‘The Story Of India’? Perhaps it’s old hat in the UK, but it only just started in Oz last week. It’s a cracker.

The first ep started with the very beginnings of the Aryan people. Seems they didn’t start in India. Travel back over 2000 years to the Indus valley from which India got its name. A huge civilisation with palaces, temples and everything. And now it’s what? A dustbowl. Says Michael Wood – Climate change has happened before. Oh really? Don’t tell George Monbiot!

But let’s jump again. The Indus wasn’t the Aryan’s starting point. For that we have to go back to Turkmenistan and another couple of millennia. More ruins of palaces and temples but this time we’re beyond dustbowls and are in a true flinty desert hell. But 5000 years ago there were rivers, forests and arable land. And then the climate changed.

So – between the two facts, a) the climate is changing, and, b) the climate changes, which is more useful? What we know for sure is that the climate has changed before and these changes seemed to come thousands of years apart.

And there I was impressed that assorted lesser Pacific islands are disappearing. Says the history books, the Polynesians and Melanesians on those disappearing islands have been there for less than a thousand years. Maybe as few as five hundred. They are the newest of all aboriginal people. And yep, they are absolutely flabbergasted that their islands are disappearing. But if the cycles of climate change came thousands of years apart, they would be wouldn’t they be? First they’ve heard of it.

As for glaciers, I will concede that they are proof that the climate is changing. But is there anything about their shift that precludes their having changed before? Have they changed in their past without any help from man? Simple question.

Plug it into other planets in the solar system with their temperatures rising and falling in concert with the earth, all without any contributions from us, and what do you get? The argument isn’t whether the earth’s climate is, or isn’t, changing. Nor is whether it’s capable of change. The argument is whether it’s humans that are making it happen.

Here are the two positions -

-The climate is changing and humans are at fault and therefore we need a new world order.

-The climate changes, just like it has before and just like it’s doing now on other planets and no humans need apply. Not forgetting – Of course the new world order scumbags would lie about it!

Honestly think of the lies we were told about WMD’s. How big was that marketing campaign? And it didn’t have a grain of truth in it and every dissenting voice was shut out. And that was a single war in a single country.

Okay, so… to what lengths would they go for a one world government? And… given what we all know about WMD’s in Iraq, is it impossible that we’re being bullshitted to about global warming? Never mind ‘possibilty’, a more sensible discussion would pivot on ‘probability’. Hell! I’ll lay odds!

PS Excellent concise deconstruction of government ‘riot’ control. Bravo.

There is no democracy.

There is no freedom.

Voting is pointless.

Interest on loans should be illegal.

Routes to change?

Stop paying ALL debts and loans and credit cards.

It will take approximately 500,000 people doing this to have a real effect.

At 1,000,000 participants we have change for certain.

Is it risky?

Yes – change isnt easy or risk free – thats why it almost never happens.

65,000,000 people in the UK, and all it takes is 1,000,000 to NOT pay their debts at all.

Thats less than 1.5% of the population.

Maybe 6% of the adult population.

Its impossible of course – the UK cant even find 1.5% who care about much at all……

Peaceful protest is a laughable oxymoron.

The ‘political process’ is merely a gateway to slavery.

Take away the Banks profits on loans, expose them for the loan sharks they are.

Glaciers have melted and moved many times before – and are obviously continuing to do so.

Soon Climate Change will be forgotten, like the ‘War on Drugs’, the ‘War on Terror’ and all the other nonsense.

The only real constant is TV.

If 1,000,000 adults throw away their TV sets, we will have change.

1,000,000. Thats all.

Protest is timid.

Action is natural.

Dont protest – just throw your TV into the nearest canal.

Elimination wins.

Noisy protests are continuous whining festivals – see what the absence of 1,000,000 TV’s will do.

Nemo

I had come to much the same conclusion on the way forward – the people repudiate the banks. I am not sure it is impossible. it may be now, but this depression is going to cut much deeper than people have grasped, and this time next year it may be an idea that will take hold.

Stop using the telephone.

Write letters instead.

All it takes is 1,000,000 people to write letters every day instead of telephoning and we have change.

Eliminate, dont supplement.

Its the repetitive nature of humans that weakens them so tragically.

Be strong – no TV, no debts, no telephone.

Thats how to destroy the TV system, the Banks, and save the simple Mail system.

Yet all you want to do is whine in large crowds and blow whistles like attention-seeking fools.

Strength is doing without – can YOU do it?

Can YOU live without people telling you what to do?

Do YOU really want freedom?

If so, lose the TV, the debts, the telephone.

100 years ago, there was no TV, interest on loans was a sin, and the telephone was just an idea.

Cant you eliminate the things that enslave you?

Pascal said that the problem is that people cant simply sit quietly in a room and read.

Well, can YOU?

I thought Craig’s article was very good, and likely a very accurate examination of the demonisation of protest. By demonising protest, you are demonising everyone who doesn’t agree with the government. You are also demonising everyone who doesn’t agree with the Tories. But the Tories and Labour are the same. So you are basically demonising all disagreement with the government, Tory or Labour. That’s what happens in totalitarian states. A true working democracy wouldn’t have got to the pass we’re now in, and there would have been no need for protest. It would seem that the protesters at the previous G8 meetings were right all along. It is they that now have the high moral and political ground, and the leaders who are failing us.

That’s the main point of Craig’s article. I agree with his point about global warming too, and it’s just so disappointing yet again to read the appallingly naive nonsense of those who dispute global warming as a problem.

Craig, you don’t mention the agents provocateurs,

undercover police and secret service who regularly lead the

violent outbreaks delegitimising otherwise peaceful protests

in the eyes of the people.

Also, you may be well read on Climate Change,

but you don’t show it.

Another huge nail in the AGW coffin today.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/

By all means send all your savings to the Save The Glaciers Fund if you so wish Mr Monkey, I will be investing it in arctic clothing. Be careful what you wish for, youre going to be seeing LOTS of glaciers up close and personal in the future.

‘Craig, you don’t mention the agents provocateurs,

undercover police and secret service who regularly lead the

violent outbreaks delegitimising otherwise peaceful protests

in the eyes of the people.’

Yes, you get these freaks on internet forums too at times. You’d think they might actually read the threads and wake up.

Just on the climate change issue I have to say I think something manmade is happening. Whether that’s glaciers or deserts we will see i’m not debating. I’m not an expert, but in the last 10 years I have seen a marked change in my local weather. I have lived where I am for more than 30 years. My common sense tells me it is artificial. Sure I can’t be sure though. Powers would exploit the issue whether it is real or not. I hope no one assumes it’s fake because some twats make a meal of it.

On agents provocateurs, there was a fascinating and drawn out scene outside the Bank of England yesterday when a distinct group of some thirty were attacking the police, one hitting the police with a long pole. Prominent was a group of young Asian lads.

I recognised them because I was crushed up hard for a good while against the same bunch of young Asians outside the Israeli Embassy a couple of months ago, where again they were being inexcusably violent.

The very strange thing was that, plainly from Sky’s overhead cam, the Police had the ability to isolate and snatch this group of obviously violent individuals, and the police would have had my support in doing so. But they didn’t.

So who are they?

“The large uncertainties in our understanding of the dynamics of land-ice flow”…

http://tinyurl.com/dfpzz8

Craig,

Thank you for the refreshing view. I was looking for some truth about what happened, and searching the interwebs and i came across your blog. I am an activist from Seattle. I am familiar with protest culture and the tactics so often seen (and well described here), used by the police. I was at the G8 in Heiligendamm and saw it there as well. I saw it when I was a teenager in Seattle in 1999. After a while it is easy to get used to it and give up protesting, because no matter what you do, thee police either make you look threatening in the media by creating confrontation, or they back off and let the press portray you as a naive hippie. Either way, the press completely misses the point and so do many of the comments here: The public and members of the public have every right to be angry about the way things are. That anger is legitimate, particularly when it comes from the youth.

Have you read the new book by Slajov Zizek about violence? He points out the inherent fallacies in how we as a culture are quick to point the finger at high profile and visible “subjective” violence, which serves the purpose of hiding the true “objective” violence that is essential to our economy and social order. In this case seeing protesters as a violent and mysterious “other” serves to legitimize not only the total authority of the police, but also, ironically, the very violence that we dare protest year after year — widespread and catastrophic “objective” violence that puts our planet and our species in peril, creates poverty and war, etc.

Anyway, I see this happen at nearly every summit, or anywhere there are large protests, but why should that make us stop? If we stop protesting we would never know how free we actually are. Dissent is a muscle that must be used or it will atrophy.

I see the BBC is now parroting the term New World Order. Got to plant those seeds in the minds of the public. That’s terrible and I want nothing to do with it. You just have to look at the state of democracy in the U.S.A. to figure out it’s the wrong road to go down. I’m feeling very pessimistic. Our democracy is going right down the toilet. Global government, global currency, global institutions will be with us in this century. If we don’t stop them I seriously think that would happen. It would just be a question of how long. I’m unsure what others here think, but that is what I see. I don’t even know that it can be stopped now. We is screwed probably…

Someone tell me i’m wrong please?